Click image to order

Prof. Richard Parncutt: Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

Hat tip to Richard Tol for alerting me to this nice example of eco-fascist thinking from Richard Parncutt, a Professor at the University of Graz, Austria. Parncutt, an expert on the psychology of music, originally from Australia, has an interesting take on combining the precautionary principle with David Hume’sJohn Stuart Mill’s Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ (in this case the as yet unborn), and Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’ and its potential application to ‘the denier problem’. Richard Tol wryly refers to Parncutt’s DeSmogBlog denier list link as ‘Death Row’. I’m one of those on it.

UPDATE: I’m behind the curve, having been away for a week, Jo Nova already has a big discussion going on this story, as does WUWT.

UPDATE 2: Prof. Parncutt has taken down and re-written his death-penalty for sceptics manifesto. See the new version here.

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.com

Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.

When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.

So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?

Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.

Of course it is possible that scientists are just making it up for their own benefit. The trouble with that argument is that scientists who publish fake data or deliberately set out to mislead people about GW have a lot to lose and nothing to win. When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career. It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take. It is possible someone is paying the scientists behind the scences to publish environmental doomsday stories, but again the argument is problematic: there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories (just like there is no money in writing internet pages like this one). And here is why: It has been clear for a long time that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous, and the costs incurred by not doing that or doing it too late will be many times greater. The main problem is that no-one wants to pay this money. As a rule, those who make money out of ignoring GW would rather leave this problem for our children and grandchildren to deal with. (How kind of them!) In this situation, a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW, so that those who profit from ignoring it can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities – and presumably many scientists have already done so. But there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW, except for the ordinary rewards that ordinary scientists get for publishing good research reports.

The problem gets even more uncomfortable when you consider the broader context. Even without GW (or ignoring the small amount that has happened so far), a billion people are living in poverty right now. Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger (more).The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress. But political forces in the other direction are stronger. The strongest of these political forces is GW denial.The death penalty

In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.

I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.

Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.

GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.

My estimate of “hundreds of millions” is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind. They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought. They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances. As a rule that depends only on the quality of the research. Third, the authors of different studies are generally working independently of each other in different countries, universities and disciplines. If so many unbiased people independently come to a similar conclusion, the probability that that conclusion is wrong is negligible.

For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer, at the same time as countless research projects were presenting evidence to the contrary. How many deaths did tobacco denialism cause? Globally, lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year. A significant proportion of these deaths is due to tobacco denialists who slowed attempts to slow down the rate of smoking. Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.

I don’t think that mass murderers of the usual kind, such Breivik, should face the death penalty. Nor do I think tobacco denialists are guilty enough to warrant the death penalty, in spite of the enormous number of deaths that resulted more or less directly from tobacco denialism. GW is different. With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths. For this reason I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers. More generally, I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths

Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.

From this example, it is clear that there is a dividing line somewhere between murders for which the death penalty is appropriate and murders for which it is inappropriate. I am proposing to make that dividing line concrete at about one million people. I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. Please note also that I am only talking about prevention of future deaths – not punishment or revenge after the event.

That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily. There is a clear causal relationship between the Vatican’s continuing active discouragement of the use of condoms and the spead of AIDS, especially in Africa. We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death. I am talking about the current Pope, because his continuing refusal to make a significant change to the church’s position on contraception (more) will certainly result in millions of further unnecessary deaths from AIDS in the future. Since many of these deaths could be prevented relatively easily simply by changing the position of the Catholic church, which incidentally is one of the most influential political powers in Africa and elsewhere, we are talking about something remarkably similar to premeditated mass murder. Not the same, because the church does not want the affected people to die. But the numbers of people involved are so enormous that at some level it doesn’t matter any more whether the murder is premeditated or not. The position of the church is presumably also racist: if those dying from AIDS were not predominately black, the church would presumably have changed its position on contraception long ago. Just imagine 30 million white people dying from AIDS in Europe or North America, and you will see what I mean.

What about holocaust deniers? The Nazi holocaust was the worst crime in human history, for two reasons: the enormous number of murdered people and the automation of the murder process. Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars. The death penalty would be too much for them, because holocaust deniers are not directly causing the deaths of other people. The holocaust is in the past, not the future. Those who died in the holocaust cannot be brought back to life.
Counterarguments

In self defence, both the Catholic church and the GW deniers would point out straight away that they don’t intend to kill anyone. The Catholic church is merely of the opinion that contraception is generally a bad thing. The GW deniers are simply of the opinion that the GW scientists are wrong. Both groups are enjoying their freedom of speech and perhaps they sincerely believe what they are claiming. They can certainly cite lots of evidence (you can find evidence for just about anything if you look hard enough).

Another counterargument is that we can never be sure that the predicted GW will happen, or that its effects will be as severe as predicted. But this is not a strong argument. The courts are used to dealing with uncertainty. Even at the conclusion of a murder trial, there is generally some remaining uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, even if the court pretends that there is not. Courts must rely on eye-witness reports, but memories can be distorted and witnesses can have ulterior motives. That is why there are so many reports of executions of innocent people. In the case of GW, the case is clearer. Even if the prediction of hundreds of millions of deaths turns out to be exaggerated, the more moderate prediction of tens of millions will not.

For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die. These are the numbers that GW deniers are playing with while exercising their “freedom of speech”. The number that the Catholics are playing with are an order of magnitude smaller, but still horrendously large. Since these figures exceed the arbitrary limit of one million that I am proposing, it follows that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope. It also follows for example that George W. Bush and Tony Blair should not face the death penalty for the Iraq war, since it “only” claimed about 100 000 lives since 2003 (more).

Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am simply presenting a logical argument. I am neither a politician nor a lawyer. I am just thinking aloud about an important problem.

Lawyers will see this situation differently, of course. According to current law you cannot exact a criminal sentence of murder on someone for deaths that have not yet happened, and might not happen if – despite GW deniers – governments and people act to stop GW. Even conspiracy to murder depends on intent to murder, which clearly does not exist in this case. Then there is the question of in which judicial system someone could be tried and prosecuted. Given that the alleged victims of the criminal act are not confined to the country in which the GW denier lives, but are all over the world, then only an international court (perhaps the International Criminal Court) would do. I guess that right now there is no existing law, either national or international, under which such a prosecution could be pursued. Given the overriding importance of GW (just about everything else that we hold dear depends on it), I am proposing with this text a legal change that will make the criminal trial of GW deniers possible.

In such a trial, ignorance of scientific research would be no excuse. There is clear evidence that unprotected sex is causing the deaths of ten millions, and that GW deniers are causing the deaths of hundreds of millions. This evidence is freely available and constantly in the media. If the legal change that I am envisaging comes about, a future court of law will not accept the claim that the culprits simply did not know about this research.
Consequences

If my argument is correct, it has clear political consequences. Here is a scenario for what might happen if my argument is broadly accepted, both democratically and politically.

The universal declaration of human rights and every national constitution would be amended to include the rights of future generations. Incidentally, that would also make national debts illegal, because they oblige future generations to pay them. Getting rid of national debts would in turn solve an important aspect of the “global financial crisis” (more), which currently belongs to the list of common excuses for not investing money in the prevention of GW.

The proposed legal change would be announced and widely publicized for an extended period before it came into force. During that time, GW deniers would have a chance to change their ways and escape punishment.

The police would start to identify the most influential GW deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.

If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) – using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.
Outlook

Right now, in the year 2012, these ideas will seem quite crazy to most people. People will be saying that Parncutt has finally lost it. But there is already enough evidence on the table to allow me to make the following prediction: If someone found this document in the year 2050 and published it, it would find general support and admiration. People would say I was courageous to write the truth, for a change. Who knows, perhaps the Pope would even turn me into a saint. Presumably there will still be a Pope, and maybe by then he will even have realised that condoms are not such a bad thing! And by the way 2050 is rather soon. Most people reading this text will still be alive then.

I don’t want to be a saint. I would just like my grandchildren and great grandchildren, and the human race in general, to enjoy the world that I have enjoyed, as much as I have enjoyed it. And to achieve that goal I think it is justified for a few heads to roll. Does that make me crazy? I don’t think so. I am certainly far less crazy than those people today who are in favor of the death penalty for everyday cases of murder, in my opinion. And like them I have freedom of speech, which is a very valuable thing.

The opinions expressed on this page are the personal opinions of the author. I thank John Sloboda for suggestions, and further suggestions are welcome._____________________________________________________________________________

he would find by clicking on link [13] a study by Sreekanth (2009) which says (para 4.5):

“The input flux rate of carbon into atmosphere from combustion (LESS THAN 5%) is too small compared to other natural sources (GREATER THAN 95%). CO2 also being the 2nd most important greenhouse gas after water, we can conclude that anthropogenic CO2 generation has no effect on global warming.”

Following the author’s logic, Rachel Carson should have been executed for the deaths of several million African children from malaria. In most countries, murder (and hence punishment for murder) requires intent and she had no such intent.

“Not evil just wrong”

[Reply] Or in the climate sceptics case, not evil or wrong, just asking awkward questions.

I thoght I should check out the debate at joannenova first, so now my comments below are basically being cross-posted! But I think I’m still offering a different perspective here on Tallbloke, (my background is philosophy and ethics) as everyone here seems to start with ‘facts’ rather than principles or indeed ‘logical arguments’. The latter, but definitely not the former being what Prof P says his article is really about ie. an attempt to produce a ‘logical’ argument, demonstrating that conventional ethical measures favour the Climate Alarmists not the Deniers.

Unfortunately, the argument is anything but logical. It rests on the well-known principle of utilitarianism, that the ‘happiness’ of the greatest number should be the measure of any policy. From this assumption, it is proposed that Climate Change will result in a massive decrease in total human happiness and that this decrease could be avoided by making some ‘Climate Deniers’ unhappy, by it is unpleasantly suggested, executing them. (Actually simply preventing them communicating would appear to be enough ‘logically’ speaking…)

However, although presented rather grandly, the claim is facile. ANY policy can be justified with such a methodology. Not for nothing is utilitarianism sometimes marked out not as ‘ethics’ but ‘anti-ethics’.

Take, for example, the holocaust. If Hitler’s extermination policy (over time) resulted in Western European countries rejecting war as a means of settling their political differences (which it seems indeed to have done), and if over time this saved many more lives than those the Holocaust cost, on the Parncutt version of utilitarianism, the policy is ‘morally right’.

Of course this sort of simple arithmetic does not persuade anyone in that case, nor should it even be treated as worth discussing in the Climate Change case.

It is of course true that we do use utilitarian calculations all the time in public policy, but the vaguer and more speculative the starting assumptions the more ridiculous the conclusions.

Hi Martin. Well, yes, I gave David Hulme, the father of the utilitarian philosophy a mention in the intro. Prof. Palmclott makes a bit of hash of the logic with his jiggling between conditionals ‘could’ and definitives ‘will’ as well.

Parncutt is not popular with his colleagues. He is an arrogant, fanatical oddball. This is him whinging:

“During the 1990s I (an Australian) applied for professorships in several different Canadian, American, British, German and Austrian universities without success. In most cases, the person who was offered the job was clearly less qualified that I am….”

“In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department. The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, coupled with envy of my research record, my interdisciplinary and international mobility, and my desire to promote transparency and high academic standards.

“To my astonishment, other colleagues not only failed to defend me – sometimes they even sided with the attacker/s. While many people were unsure what exactly was going on, they were also generally unwilling to be informed. Again, this is a subject statement, and readers may reasonable suspect me of being a bit paranoid.”

“From 1999 to 2006 I was looking for financial support for an applied interdisciplinary project about racism and xenophobia that was supported by researchers in a range of disciplines at the University of Graz. Several major grant applications wereignored (evidently not even reviewed).”

Utilitarianism is not at issue. The Professor’s view of his opponents (I didn’t say intellectual opponents, for the lack of anything rational in the Professor’s argument) is dictated by a toxic error in information, which cast them as denying “scientific evidence” — a viewpoint which is frequent in who can’t recognize evidence if it barked at him. That’s the wrong thing.

For the happiness of the greatest number I must oppose the GW conjecture, as it will, if accepted by politicians, produce the death of billions by famine and cold,

The main opposition to utilitarianism, Kant-like normative, universal morals and moral relativism, are also both unsatisfactory.

quote: “hopefully,the usa and china will come to their senses soon”………well,the u.s. came to their
senses in the first half of last century,when they were instrumental in stopping another barking mad austrian……!

Sounds like an incitement to violence, uttering threats, and hate speech. Not sure what the laws are in Austria, but people should send emails to their government and his university calling for charges and deportation.

That truly is terrifying. Not the fascist rant. The fact that this tool is from my country and he is a teacher in a University.

On behalf of Australia I apologise for this moron. We will do something about the noise level of his ilk like that other imbecile Flannery after the next election. It really does worry me though why Australia seems to have such a high level of self deluded wanna-be global scale social planners.

Ridicule these tossers long, loud and hard. They deserve all the mocking they get. Maybe we should send him a calendar so he could rail against the Koch brothers

Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz would have fitted in comfortably to the Third Reich. Some of the most fanatical supporters of the Third Reich came from Austria, the home land of the dear Fuehrer. Professor Richard Parncutt’s obsession with CAGW belief has clouded his reason to the point that he argues against his own humanitarian principles. Like many supporters of the Third Reich he believes in things that have no basis in science and like them will hold to his beliefs in the face of valid argument until the last stone of his fortress of belief is destroyed.

AGW has (1) no data; and (2) no theory, just based on stuff that any graduate student can verify for himself.

1. No data. You can’t tell a trend from a cycle with data that’s short compared to the cycle you want to eliminate. The mechanism is that the eigenvalues of the discriminating matrix explode, making every measurement hopelessly inadquate. And a cycle can’t be man-caused.

2. No theory. You can’t solve the Navier-Stokes equations, which govern the atmosphere. Flows in three dimensions tend to shorter and shorter scales, so no resolution whatsoever is adequate for the problem. But you need the short scales because they act back on the large scales as a sort of ersatz viscosity. So instead modellers pull an equation out of a hat that is not a physics equation, and solve that instead. That is not physics, nor is it science.

There is lots of sociology supporting AGW however, having to do with career paths and grants. There’s the settled science.

Wow, astoundingly stupid .. of course, using his “logic” we should also put to death the GW supporters since their impotence in getting their message across will also cost tens of millions of “future deaths”. Bureau of Future Crime … wasn’t that a Tom Cruise movie called Minority report?

This whole “Global Warming” thing is bullshit dreamed up by a tiny claque who want to control the rest of us and go on exotic vacations at our expense while condemning us to live in conditions to which a dark-ages peasant would have objected.

Anybody else notice Parncutt also justified killing all Catholic bishops and priests? He didn’t have the guts to drawing the obvious logical conclusion in this broadside but that’s just a pacing decision.

I’ve often made the statement that in my political word the Michael Moore & John Stewart types of the left are allowed to make their free market, capitalistic pig, millions off their gullible acolytes.

But in the their’s and Mr. R. Parncutt’s political world me, and people like me, are in a ditch with a bullet in our heads.

Start with a completely wrong statement about probability (if 100 million people have a 10% likelihood of dying, then so does any subset of that 100 million sample. Only by waiting to find out who actually dies and selecting only the deceased can one increase that likelihood) and proceed downhill from there. I truly hope someone watches out for the welfare of this imbecile as it is very unlikely that he is competent to fend for himself.

Welcome all new visitors to the talkshop. Please feel free to express yourselves through well aimed and well argued reasoning to help defeat the illogical forces of darkness we face. Remember too that Christmas is a time for leaving behind the dark days and moving into the light.

The positive power of science and logic is for us to harness in the search for truth.

Best wishes to everyone, may the bright beacons carried by us all light the way.

I don’t deny the planet is warming – I just question how much we are contributing to it, AND how much we can really change it without having a severe impact on the global economy (which causes far worse societal problems than a bit of global warming).

“Start with a completely wrong statement about probability (if 100 million people have a 10% likelihood of dying, then so does any subset of that 100 million sample. Only by waiting to find out who actually dies and selecting only the deceased can one increase that likelihood) and proceed downhill from there.”

While you are certainly correct in highlighting the good music teacher’s statistical ignorance, I believe you have missed the greater fallacy. Those 100 million people have a 100% chance of dying, no more, no less.

This Richard Parncutt guy is wrong in too many ways to count. Just a sample: He is wrong about world and climate history, wrong about the death penalty and its history, wrong (and apparently profoundly unclear) about the concept of culpability, wrong about “cause and effect” as regards the Popes, wrong about AIDS and the concept of personal responsibility, wrong about the inflexibility of Catholic doctrine, and as bad as the Nazis were, he is wrong to say “The Nazi holocaust was the worst crime in human history” because at least as far as body-count totals go Hitler was a complete piker when compared to Parncutt’s leftist fellow travelers Stalin and/or Mao.

It’s too bad that Parncutt’s fatwa-wannabe hadn’t come to light about a year earlier. I think he would have been a perfect candidate for Heartland’s venture into Billboardism, thus making their choice of tactic somewhat less unpalatable to many.

OTOH, I rather suspect that the honchos at the United Nations’ “Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice” ,one of whose “mandated priority areas” is:

But speaking of “quietly” … is it not strange that not one voice from the alarmosphere has been heard condemning (or even rapping the knuckles of) Parncutt? It’s almost getting to the point that these Sounds of Silence are getting to be so predictable!

Oh, well, c’est la vie, eh?!.

For those who might be seeking a seasonal antidote to Parncutt’s Proposed Poisonous Protocol™, may I take the liberty of recommending Philip Foster’s A Climate Carol, a fable for Christmas. As a Dickens fan from way back when, and as I have recently posted at WUWT, I quite liked many of Foster’s turns of phrase, particularly:

The door flew open and there stood a spectre looking horribly like Professor ——, that great climate scientist, who had recently died from an untreated hyper-active ego. But what was he dragging? Iron objects, tied together with barbed wire trailed behind the spectral figure. Closer inspection showed they were giant hockey sticks made of metal.

And while I’m here … I’d like to say thank you to Roger and his helpers and wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and all the best for 2013.

May the ever-increasing decline in credibility of the legion of alarmists with “untreated hyperactive egos” (and their retinue of acolytes and lesser-lights) continue to drive those who prefer to think for themselves to discover the voices reason in the blogosphere!

I’m sorry to comment in this fashion – I really try to stay away from those subjects people tend to think of as personal, sensitive, and possibly scatological, but given his eliminationist rhetoric regarding FUTURE deaths, like “I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths” and “…hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines”, and that he’s willing to have people executed to prevent these possible future deaths, I just have to say:
1) Monty Python’s song “Every Sperm is Sacred” is now reverberating through my skull. Thanks, Parncutt, I actually didn’t need that.
2) His exact same excuse could be used to execute ANYONE who has children, or may one day have children, as their children will in turn have children of their own, and on and on throughout future history, so that it is nearly a 100% certainty that should someone’s line not be completely wiped out, then they will certainly eventually be the progenitors of mass killers (as Parncutt defines them), victims, and countless other resource hogging mouths needing feeding.
3) Since we’re talking about “potential future deaths”, which could be considered just the flip side of the coin from “preventing potential future life”, the eternally childless don’t get off scot-free here either. At least the males don’t. It is a scientific and social near-certainty that almost every guy at some point in their lives “spills their seed upon the ground”, per se, so essentially by Parncutt’s reasoning they should die as well, having snuffed out all those endless future potential lives (thus the Python song).

So basically, Eric Idle’s musical skills aside, Mr. Parncutt’s “reasoning” (ha!) can be used to justify the execution of pretty much everybody.

“In recent years, I was repeatedly attacked by workplace colleagues with the apparent intention of forcing me to leave my department. The stated reasons were generally arbitrary, exaggerated, misleading or invented; the real reasons were presumably my cultural and disciplinary Otherness, coupled with envy of my research record, my interdisciplinary and international mobility, and my desire to promote transparency and high academic standards”

I hate to say it, but I think most governments who actually try to execute people for denying global warming is likely to be hauled out of their capitol and strung up by the mob like Ceausescu, Mussolini, or Ghadafi. And if they think their armed and police forces will protect them, no, they’ll clap and take pictures on their phones. How can someone with a degree be such a clueless vile authoritarian idiot?

“If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.” That numerical fallacy just proves that fascistic globaloney hysterics don’t really understand math.

The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Because of that, no finite set of recorded past states would be sufficient to predict a set of long term future states. That means that global warming can be tracked, but not predicted. Rather than attempt to control future states (temperatures) which we can not do, we should try to assure wealth, by which we have the means to adapt to future states that we can not predict.

I note that when he complains about the guy in Norway killing 77 and that killing him would make 78 and still not bring anyone back. Its true that killing the murderer wouldn’t bring anyone back, but it means that the price of killing 77 people, if the murderer’s death is the price, the price is far too low, not too high.

So we have a professor calling for a select group which he determines to be arrested for crimes he decided they have done, placed on trial and judged by scientists like him and his peers, and then executed for disagreeing with him and his selected cohorts. That he has the stones to talk about how bad the holocaust was is outstanding.

How about we round up all the socialists on the world for the crimes they have done, are doing right now and will doubtless do again in the future. No mention of the purges of Stalin or Mao, why was that?

Of course if we did this, celebrities, academics and politicians would be decimated overnight. But that is a feature, not a bug.

−
== Leben ==
+
== Leben == Richard Parncutt studierte Musik und Physik an der Universität Melbourne, Australien. Life == == Richard Parncutt studied music and physics at the University of Melbourne, Australia. 1987 schloss er sein Studium an der University of New England (Armidale/Australien) mit einem Doktorat in den Bereichen Musik, Psychologie und Physik ab. In 1987 he graduated from the University of New England (Armidale / Australia) with a doctorate in music, psychology and physics. Er war Gastforscher mit oder Postdoc bei Ernst Terhardt (München), Johan Sundberg (Stockholm), Annabel Cohen (Halifax, Canada), Al Bregman (Montreal), und John Sloboda (Keele, England) und Dozent (lecturer) am Institut für Psychologie der Keele University (England). He was a visiting researcher or Postdoc at Ernst Terhardt (Munich), Johan Sundberg (Stockholm), Annabel Cohen (Halifax, Canada), Al Bregman (Montreal), and John Sloboda (Keele, England) and lecturer (lecturer), Department of Psychology Keele University (England). Neben seiner musikpsychologischen Forschungs- und Lehrtätigkeit engagiert sich Richard Parncutt in den Bereichen [[Interkulturalität]]s- und [[Rassismus]]forschung sowie [[Kollegialität]] und akademische Leistungssicherung. In addition to his music, psychological research and teaching activities, Richard Parncutt active in service [[interculturalism]] s and [[racist]] research and [[collegiality]] academic performance and security.
−
Richard Parncutt studierte Musik und Physik an der Universität Melbourne, Australien. 1987 schloss er sein Studium an der University of New England (Armidale/Australien) mit einem Doktorat in den Bereichen Musik, Psychologie und Physik ab. Er war Gastforscher mit oder Postdoc bei Ernst Terhardt (München), Johan Sundberg (Stockholm), Annabel Cohen (Halifax, Canada), Al Bregman (Montreal), und John Sloboda (Keele, England) und Dozent (lecturer) am Institut für Psychologie der Keele University (England). Neben seiner musikpsychologischen Forschungs- und Lehrtätigkeit engagiert sich Richard Parncutt in den Bereichen [[Interkulturalität]]s- und [[Rassismus]]forschung sowie [[Kollegialität]] und akademische Leistungssicherung.
+
+
You should also know this about Richard Parncutt.
+
+
Death penalty for global warming deniers?
+
An objective argument…a conservative conclusion
+
last updated 25 October 2012
+
+
For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.
+
+
Some accounts are clearly exaggerated (more). But given the inherent uncertainty surrounding climatic predictions, even exaggerated accounts must be considered possible, albeit with a low probability. Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
+
+
When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources (more). Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.
+
+
So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action (more). But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?
+
+
Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers. An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives. For a long list of climate change deniers and their stories see desmogblog. The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations. ETC.

“I am not saying the global warming deniers are wrong. I am talking on a different level. All participants in this debate, including the global warming deniers, acknowledge that there are significant uncertainties. We are sure whether we are risking these future lives or not. And as long as we are unsure, global warming denial should be considered a crime. We have no right to gamble with the lives of millions of people.”

Or unless he can come up with some fabulist, quantifier-switching argument about how many people in the future might be affected if you live. Kind of a reverse It’s a Wonderful Life. (My guess is Professor Capra’s classes would be a lot fuller than Parncutt’s.)

Note that actually killing people excludes you from his death list. Voicing opinions, on the other hand, lands you on it.

People like him (that is to say, incipient murderous fascists with dictatorial longings) should definitely stay away from statistical arguments, because there is some statistical possibility that he might come into power and actually be able to sublimate his eliminationist fantasies. Therefore, by his own logic, he himself should be eliminated so that there is no chance of that happening. (BTW, I don’t believe that. He does.)

To be clear, my snarky comment was to Parncutt, so concerned about the future people the agw deniers are killing. I am sure he is fine with aborting them, and with burdening the lucky survivors with regulations and debt.

Interesting article. But I think one very important part has been ignored in debate. From Parncutt’s original article:

“Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer) and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine.”

In his article, he not only advocates for the death penalty for GW deniers, Parncutt is calling for individuals to murder GW deniers and promising the reward of hero status.

The argument is clearly an attack on freedom of speech, and I cannot support it, but just to turn it around on the author: If global warming ‘believers’ are in fact wrong, but do in fact implement their principles and destroy a good deal of capitalism in the process – are they to be killed on the basis of contributing to this crime? After all, impeding capitalism will lower the standard of living of the entire world, hamper progress in living better in every way, and yes, result in the inadvertant death of many people who would have otherwise benefited from capitalism’s innovations and efficiencies.

He speaks from a rich history of examples where differing opinions lead to harsh punishments. He probably thinks he’s a liberal, like the Chinese, where after public self-denunciation you would be sent to the countryside to work off your final “debt” before you were “rehabilitated': in good Austro-Gernanic-Russian-Baathist-Cambodian belief, once an enemy, always an enemy, and execution was the only reasonable answer.

Thank God for a university education: history, philosophy and religious knowledge bring out the best in even the worst of us.

“If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.”

Isn’t this the basis of the insanity of the CAGW follower? This is how they think.

The warmist camp make the samel error above. They fail to understand that many of the scenarios/probabilities have zero deaths, some even have more lives. The error is that the outcome style is 100% certain, and only the magnitude of that style in dispute.

A life experience example:

When I was at university I would go to the bar with my testosterone buddies. There was always one in the group who methodically approached girls to have sex with him that night. He told us that if the stats said 5% were likely to have sex any given night, he just had to ask enough of them. Of course this was a fallacy: the stats did not say that 5% of the girls in THAT bar, or that 5% of girls of his age group or social standing would have sex with HIM, THAT night or even ever. There were many scenarios in which various percentages were true, including the 85% of the girls who were in loving, committed relationship with long-term boyfriends of which he was not nor would ever be, one. But all mixed up in the overall stats was this “truth”.

Rude boy acted on the basis that the general rule is applicable in the specific. The general rule is not the same as a law, and, even when applicable, may not have an outcome equal to the general: this is what averages are all about.

This fallacy is what the warmist Parncutt and Romm and Gore do. They take the general rule that increased amounts of CO2 AND water vapour together will cause previously non-absorbed infra-red rays to raise the surficial temperature of the Earth and apply it to the specific situation of the Earth today. They take it to be the over-reaching law it is not, and fail to accept this rule as having other rules and laws that determine the specific outcome, and that any specific outcome is not necessarily like any general or average outcome.

I’d better check the IPCC List of Authors: I wouldn’t be surprised if my old bar buddy works there theses days. By the way, as you’d expect, he went home by himself most nights. But his “observation” didn’t change his “certainty of outcome” for years, not until the glacial period arrived (i.e. he got married).

As far as I can see, no one has addressed yet another way that this person’s “logic” is flawed, although a couple of commenters have hinted at this particular flaw: he only assumes that Death and Destruction(TM) is *only* going to be the result of lack of action as a result of GW Deniers.

The problem with this, is that we’re going to need to make *massive* changes to our lifestyles–changes that *can* (and sometimes *have*) resulted in the deaths of others. Thus, we need models to illustrate what’s going to happen if we try to take steps to stop Global Warming. If those (mostly economic) models show that people are going to die as a result of taking action, then anyone advocating some of the more egreggious actions ought to be executed, by this very same logic.

Indeed, what should become of those who advocated a carbon credit system in Europe? About all that resulted from that, was a collapse in the cost of credits, because any industry that needed loads of carbon credits just off-shored their production–so important things like cement and steel, rather than being made within the borders of Europe, were shipped in from outside. Hence, an *increase* of carbon emmissions, rather than a *decrease*! Should the death penalty apply to such people? After all, they are contributing to the problem of global warming!

You can get a grant for just about anything as long as you tie it to AGW. “Three legged stools and their effect on AGW”…boom, you’ve got a research grant for a year’s study. AGW deniers can barely hold a job and you think the incentive to lie is on the side of AGW ‘scientists’? Puhleeze.

Perhaps Al Gore who nearly had himself set up as the Enron style carbon trading king of the world before East Anglia spilled the beans, I suppose he had no financial incentive to back a lie? Maybe the UN insiders who went to bed with Saddam Hussein to make a killing in oil, could figure out how to profit from this? Ya’think?

32,000 scientists petition Congress to NOT act on reducing CO2,
since more would grow more crops and NOT increas ocean levelshttp://www.pepitionproject.org
HowardLong MD MPH Family doctor and Epidemiologist

I still cannot tell whether Mr. Parncutt is being sarcastic or not. If not, I think he and others who believe what he believes should just kill themselves instead – then they won’t be using up resources others can use and won’t be around to feel the vicarious suffering of others they claim to feel….another benefit is that we wouldn’t have to listen to them. What a clown.

[…] of mass murderers, he’s willing to consider an exception for people he really disagrees with. Onward Discordia! In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for […]

[…] In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW [Glowbull Worming] deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from. […]

OMG! He is a professor and he wrote “If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%”. This has to be some form of hoax right?

Thankfully I live in a nation where the fundamental human right to keep and bear arm is not undermined by the state. If this man wants to see me dead he can come take his best shot. Of course I’ll be shooting back.

Once I read the initial premise (not of the author, but rather Parcutt’s absurdity), I disregarded the rest on the basis of “false premises mean false conclusions”.

I mean, seriously… all archeological historical evidence shows that, even if the earth grows a few degrees warmer over the next century or so (no matter what the cause) it can can be nothing but good from a mammalian (i.e. – us) perspective – expansion of tropical zones, the reforestation of the Sahara and the pacific southwest deserts, increased plant growth and diversity, etc.

In short, “global warming” if it happens at all, is almost certainly going to be a POSITIVE force in the world, not a negative one.

The status quo, or even a new ice age, are also possibilities – but none of these possibilities are

A) going to happen quickly enough that “millions will die” or

B) be unmanageable in terms of human habitation in any case.

Let’s be perfectly clear – “Waterworld” will NEVER happen. Even if the planet somehow acquired enough water from some extra-terrestrial source to cover it 99% (because there simply isn’t enough water on earth now to do it), humans would adapt and there would be “Water New York City”, not “Water Mad Max”. I mean, come on… look at history, people!!!

There is no “there there”. There is NO “global warming threat” … at all, real or not; human caused or solar caused. No. Threat. At. All.

So, why execute people for a non-issue?

Because you want to exert force and power over them.

There is no other reason, and no other motive behind the “global warming” alarmists – it’s all about establishing an all-powerful Nazi-like state, and nothing else… and no other rational analysis can say otherwise.

I wonder if those who mindlessly perpetuate this massive disinformation campaign and are causing starvation and poverty through rising food prices resulting from crops diverted to biofuels or massive resources diverted away from productive uses to crony capitalist “green” industry, should be given the death penalty?

The adamantly and reckless savagery of these people increases as their cherished myth disintegrates. But just as a wounded animal can sometimes be more dangerous, these loons, frauds, criminals and wanton opportunists still flogging the AGW hoax are still ruling the main media and educational narratives, not to mention government energy, agricultural and economic policy.

6.5 billion open fires is that the way to go. we are at peek oil so that will sought itself out. man was doomed the day he started vaccinations. his own poliferation will see his demise. easy way of stopping 100s of millions dying stop the birth rate. the west has already done that. now for the rest. CO2 is a trace elenent and carbon is an elenent how can they be caller pollutants. you are not losing the argument not because of deniers. you are losing it because the average Joe was believing you 5 years ago. but as they saying goes you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. but you hang in there spud. if your calamity comes true you will be one happy camper.

We are NOT at “peak oil”; that whole concept is incorrect (and in practice fraudulent), nor will we ever be. Also, neither vaccinations nor our birth rate are a problem (except that the birthrate should be higher than it is). Our population is less than a fifth of the density that our planet has proven itself (with the help of modern farming technology) capable of supporting. No, our problem – as Parncutt demonstrates resoundingly – is a lethal level of misinformation, apparently with criminal intent, in the political and educational spheres.

“Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%”.<<<< Consider this: Who the hell gave you a degree? That is one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen and clearly devoid of ANY understanding of statistics.

[…] cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I […]

Follow the money:
17 grants held as principal investigator; major grants:
1965 – present= Continuous support for research on “Perception and Learning of Complex Patterns” Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (formerly National Research Council) NSERC – A0127.
1995-98= National Institute of Mental Health (USA). for research on “Perceptual organization of sound in human listeners”
1994-97= Grant from Province of Quebec, Ministry of Education (FCAR). Principal investigator of a team grant shared with Robert Zatorre and Richard Parncutt. 1994-97.
1977-93= Infrastructure grant to provide personnel, service contracts and supplies for a computer-based laboratory for NSERC-sponsored researchers in the McGill Psychology Department. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC-A0703).
1971-72= Grant to purchase a PDP-11 computer system (with six other researchers) National Research Council of Canada (NRC-E-3221).
1976-77= Grant to purchase computer equipment for eleven NRC-sponsored researchers in the McGill Psychology Department. National Research Council of Canada (NRC-E-3790)
1984-86= Killam Research Fellowship, 2 years salary replacement to write a book, Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound (1990).
1986-87= Major equipment grant to furnish a computer-based laboratory for research in auditory perception and speech. Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.

The deaths that would result from “governments acting” to prevent GW would exceed many times the worst totals projected from GW, and by many orders of magnitude their probability of occurrence. I.e., they are almost certain, whereas the GW-caused deaths are way out there on the wispy fringes of speculation.

Google translate:
Whoever complains about violence in our country should, causes mention by name. If it’s really the movies, etc.? Maybe they contribute to one or other help to get violent – the hateful jihadist videos and the underlying sentiment anyway. The drug also – who smuggles and sells stuff like that? Who fights the values ​​of our country, which has made our country to the relatively cohesive country that it is or was? Who fought positive parenting, good traditions and promotes selfish behavior: The main thing I sit down by – elbow society? And several hammers extremist ideologies in the minds and supports them financially and ideologically so far right and far left come of it? (If media is left-wing extremists allow to fall on politically right people – not even on the extreme right -. Then I think that this is encouraging and promoting extremism) Who supports gatherings and Ghettoisierungen and excludes others? So is not all violence-promoting detected, because man carries destructive traits in yourself, and that can by ideological left and right-wing and religious groups as well as break out by sports groups (hooligans), and from frustrated or injured individuals as well. One could laugh about it, because it’s so absurd, but demand death penalty for those who refuse to promote global warming, just as violence, because such people show themselves unable to tolerate the opinions of others:

In the interest of fairness, I am willing to consider the possibility that this guy is doing what was once done in a little piece called “A Modest Proposal.”

However, I should say, in the same spirit, that anyone dumb enough to believe that an insignificant extra amount of a barely significant greenhouse gas (water vapor is the big one, not any carbons) is actually destroying the climate, which never ceases to change, mind you, then I think THAT person should be executed for the crime of sheer stupidity. Imagine how the average IQ will rise once we eliminate such morons from our society.

And by the way, the church doesn’t give a damn if AIDS patients are any color, what an absurd thing to say. This is coming from an atheist, by the way. Seriously, what a moron…

[…] cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am […]

So if somebody calls for the execution of Richard Parncutt and the elitists who believe like him, are they allowed to say it in public, or is there a double standard? Are people like Mr. Parncutt really just radical leftists or fascists in disguise promoting their politics via environmental issues? Is he not the real threat to mankind, advocating violence and death to those who would disagree with him over a very dubious issue????? What does your common sense tell you?

How like a Liberal- “I don’t believe in the death penalty for any reason…not even for mass murderers…”, but in their twisted “logic”, a GW denier DESERVES the death penalty for the possible, outside chznce that future children will die. Liberal, communists, socialists all seem to place BLAME instead of seeking real solutions.
They also don’t take into consideration the miraculous way in which this earth adapts and heals itself; if they did, they couldn’t lay blame.

Clearly Professor Parncutt is a perfect example of higher education’s inability to make anyone more intelligent (i.e., better capable of logical thought processes). In the words of Forest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Parncutt says, “It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS”. However, there is empirical evidence that particles the size of the HIV virion can pass through latex condoms that were demonstrated to be water-tight.

Another educated idiot and useful puppet for UN AGENDA 21, supporter of JUNK SCIENCE.
Playing on the ignorant is never appealing, especially the sheep who are asleep and choose to
remain so. ” TRUTH IS OBVIOUS FOR THOSE ABLE TO SEE”

[…] warming are not just kooks. They are evil kooks. Does that sound like hyperbole? Then check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for […]

What a nutcase. I thought every rational person with an I.Q. above 50 knew that this hoax was a product of governments to frighten the masses into giving up all the good things that technology and oil have given to us. Isn’t this the reason Bill Gates has the seed bank up near the Arctic? So the elites can develop hybrid food that is designed to kill us and they will have pure seeds and grain to enjoy long healthy lives

Wow. Did I really read that? I wonder if his “logic” applies to the life issue? After all, the debate about when life begins is is actually over (yes, we all agree that it begins at conception), so if we apply Professor Parncutt’s logic to this subject we would have to conclude that he would be in favor of killing anyone who does not embrace a Pro-Life belief. After all, those persons with pro-choice beliefs are responsible for killing almost 50 million humans over the past 40 years (nearly) since Roe vs. Wade.

While I pray daily for an end to abortion and the homosexual agenda (because, in my opinion, both have already done significantly more harm to and for our society than any GW non-believers ever will), I certainly wouldn’t want any of those persons killed. Nor would I suggest that this is a justifiable means in order to end these terribly unfortunate behaviors that continue to exist.

[…] copies of the page were made first, for example at webcitation.org, Google Webcache and over at tallbloke. The crazed thinking that Mr. Music Professor here is demonstrates is truly frightening. Does he […]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING IS GLOBAL WARMING!! THIS MAN Parncutt IS INSANE – WAKE UP – it is a reason for them to make money – AL GORE owns a company for carbon credits, HELLO!!! he will make millions – also it is another way to rain in COMMUNISM to control the people – WAKE UP. This man Parncutt must be placed in a mental ward if he believes in this nonsense.!!!!! Follow the money…… Parncutt sounds like HITLER — OR MARX, POL POT!!

[…] warming ideologues are not just kooks, but evil kooks. If that sounds like hyperbole, check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for […]

[…] cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I […]

[…] cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I […]

[…] cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I […]

[…] warming are not just kooks. They are evil kooks. Does that sound like hyperbole? Then check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for […]

[…] warming are not just kooks. They are evil kooks. Does that sound like hyperbole? Then check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for […]

It seems to me that Prof. Parncutt and his ilk end up thinking like they do because organisations like the UN, and the Future World Council are unaccountable to national law and the wishes of the people whose money they milk.

We will have to disabuse them of their presumption by cutting off the money supply. To do that, we will need to set up our own organisations to force accountability on our national political parties, who also think they are above the law. Using our money to fund organisations which aim to enslave, imprison and kill us on their unaccountable whim is treasonable activity so far as I’m concerned.

It’s a big job, but we’d better get on with it, or these little Hitlers will get their way. Prof Parncutt is, as our German Architect friend pointed out earlier, merely expressing openly what the rest of this nest of vipers privately think. I haven’t noticed anyone from their side standing up to condemn his murderous intent.

Hilary Ostrov has been doing some digging, and discovered that the UN plans to promote the enactment of criminal law with respect to the environment. I’m all for caring for the environment, but the ‘global warming’ gravy train has gone far enough, and it’s time we derailed it.

First I say…DICK you are out of your mind! I DO NOT Believe in GW! You should ALREADY know this but the Earth is a cyclicle Planet meaning it goes through changes OVER & OVER & OVER again! Luckily you won’t live firever so we won’t have to listen to you for that much longer in the whole scheme of things. Also YU hav eno Power to change any laws. If I gave you my address would you PLEASE have the BALLS to TRY & carry out your STUPID sentence on me??? That way two things would be accomplished…I can continue in my beliefs & you won’t be around any longer to SPEW you dumbass statements!

[…] and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear. source The political left all over the industrialized world becomes a growing cancer. More and more I […]

While you people are head and shoulders above me in I.Q., you may want to apply an old truth told to me by my Grandad, “follow the money”. When this supposed learned man(Prof.Parncutt)claims it isn’t about the money………….It’s about the money. Look how much money Al Gore received for compiling a book about global warming. (not to mention wealth gained from creating the internet LOL) The Professor wants money, plain and simple!

Watch Tom Cruise Minority Report and live your bad boy fantasies! When the earth does not warm and the plants are depleted of there life giving food CO2 and the population grows to 10Billion and dies from starvation! You can pay back the worlds carbon tax scam money with infinite interest and chain yourself to a wind turbine and jump into the deepest ocean and exhale your last poisonous breath of CO2! [snip]

Dilemma: If there are more than one million ‘global warming deniers’ then should not proponents of the death penalty also face the death penalty, since they are, in this case directly, responsible for more than a million deaths?

[…] are not just kooks. They are evil kooks. Does that sound like hyperbole? Then check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for […]

will they retropactively execute all thosw who provide factual evidence against their stupid theories? like leif Erriksonn , who discovered vinland ( todays newfoundland) he called it vin land because all the vines crowing there , 1000 years on and its a snow scape most of the year , what happened ?? all the medievil cooking fires ??

how about the earth revolves around the sun at a varying orbit , closer some cycles than others , too simple for the4 experts ? guess you’ll have to dig up old leif and execurte him , but dont try it here weather boy , i’m good out to 800 meters with my 30-06 , let’s see who gets whom .. ya nazi wanna be

[Reply] You may want to do some fact checking on these arguments Jack.;)

[…] I wish to claim that it is generally ok to kill someone in order to save one million people. Similarly, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for GW deniers who are so influential that one million future deaths can with high probability be traced to their personal actions. — Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, an expert on the psychology of music […]

This clown is a music teacher. He is purblind to the FACT that there has been no warming since 1995. Nothing at all. No warming. In fact there has been a slight cooling. This music teacher cannot convince anyone with actual science because there is none proving anthropogenic global warming. No evidence at all. So these chicken littles, in the absence of convincing science that makes valid predictions, call everyone names and threaten people. All these idiot music teachers have is name calling. The so called ‘climate scientists’ refuse to release their original datasets, the periods used, the methods used to alter the data and cook it. They refuse to release anything except the results. This is how stage magicians work: a real scientist preserves all data, provides all data and methods, all stations used and the periods of the stations, and then a real scientist would DARE other scientists to find a flaw. But for some reason the scientific method is not how climate alarmists opertate. They know if they provided the original data they would be see as the hoaxers they are.

[…] cites the writings of Parncutt, who later took down his writing and substituted a new version that said, “Please note that I am not directly suggesting that the threat of execution be carried out. I am […]

Parncutt is another Austrian with ambitions to become the new “Führer”. Germany should close all Borders, that Parncutt won’t be able to enter the German territory. Germany should cut all its ties to Austria, untill Parncutt sits in Jail in a capsule on the moon.

He could be more dangerous than Adolf, because Parncutt is a highly studied and intelligent crazy man — Adolf was not well educated, maybe that saved the world from more.

:-):-)

[Reply] He’s not Austrian, He is an Australian, working at an Austrian university.

[…] be dragged around a parking lot with a pick-up truck. A European college professor recommended the execution of “Climate Change Deniers” and the Pope. Closer to home, an American academic called for NRA […]

[…] be dragged around a parking lot with a pick-up truck. A European college professor recommended the execution of “Climate Change Deniers” and the Pope. Closer to home, an American academic called for NRA […]

[…] be dragged around a parking lot with a pick-up truck. A European college professor recommended the execution of “Climate Change Deniers” and the Pope. Closer to home, an American academic called for NRA […]

It hasn’t taken long for the killers to crawl from behind the wainscoting, has it? And these killers really don’t look too frightening, do they? They look like plain, ordinary, almost bland people one would pass on the street. Even Parncutt’s name is unassuming. No dagger looks in his eyes, only dagger thoughts in his mind. Let the buyer beware. He’s a killer.

Mr Parmcutt,
If freedom of speech is such a valuable thing, why do you want to kill those who exercise theirs?
Chris Morrison
Newcastle on Tyne
(which has just had its 33rd consecutive day of below average temperatures for the time of year) oops. That’s me away I suppose………

I worked in a greenhouse growing peppers once. Can you believe we used to pump CARBON DIOXIDE into the greenhouse because the SELFISH PLANTS LOVE IT & NEED IT TO GROW!

I’m here to promote awareness of these new & frankly astonishing findings. We who embrace the great collective psyche of our beloved Mother Earth must be united in agreement & acknowledge this to be a ‘crime of nature’ (Criminature™ – PLANTS are the problem, NOT PEOPLE!).

To give aid to this – our moral obligation, I propose the introduction of the ‘Anti Criminature™ Committee’ who will oversee the execution of the following cast iron measures:

1. It is our moral duty to worm out all those who are guilty of Criminature™. All gardeners & anyone in collusion with plant life will be put to death unless they cease their pro carbon activities immediately.

2. In order to deter future generations from committing Criminature™, all plant life will be destroyed – thus removing any ‘need’ for carbon.

3. Given that these drastic – but necessary preventative measures will result in a bit of a food shortage (sacrifices must be made after all), all the executed carbon criminals (and anyone who doesn’t own a Prius) will be turned into burgers & fed to the poor.

While I may be a bit behind the times on this argument, please allow me to give a critique of the argument; I shall ignore the many grammatical and punctuation errors:

“For years, hard-nosed scientists have been predicting global warming (GW) and its devastating consequences. For a reputable summary of arguments for and against GW, see skepticalscience.” (plus others, such as WUWT, etc).
By “hard-nosed”, I presume you mean those scientists with whom you are in agreement. Those who do not agree with your philosophy are obviously “soft-nosed”, fools, charlatans, funded by “Big Oil”, or just plain bonkers.

“If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.” I am not a mathematician, but it is obvious that you are not, either; this is utterly fallacious logic: if ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, then one million people are going to die with a probability of 10%. Actually, we are all going to die with a probability of 100%, but let’s not get too picky.

“When the earth’s temperature rises on average by more than two degrees, interactions between different consequences of global warming (reduction in the area of arable land, unexpected crop failures, extinction of diverse plant and animal species) combined with increasing populations mean that hundreds of millions of people may die from starvation or disease in future famines. Moreover, an unknown number may die from wars over diminishing resources … Even if that does not happen, thousands of plants and animals will become extinct. Islands, shorelines and coastal communities will disappear.”
All this seems to be stated as a fact; it is not a fact, it is merely a hypothesis. From what baseline is this two degrees rise? Now? Or some historical point when it was two degrees cooler than now? History is littered with examples of droughts, floods and other causes for unexpected crop failure; none of these have been attributed to GW in any way, or to anthropogenic GW (AGW), which is really what the present long-winded farrago is about. Do you remember the tales of the dust-bowls in the US in the 1930s? A long time before the acknowledged “catastrophic” increase in the hateful CO2; so, what caused it?

“So far, the political response to the threat of GW has been lots of talk and little action… But action is urgently needed. We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world. What will it take to get people to sit up and listen?
This sounds like fear-mongering; it is very much an attempt to whip up a frenzy: “We are in a very real sense talking about something similar to the end of the world.” Are we? Where is your evidence, let alone proof? I see no “end of the world” events, just the weather, doing what the weather often does: surprising us.

“Much more would have happened by now if not for the GW deniers.
Hold on. Who is in denial, here? Those you pillory are not denying the fact; they are merely questioning the cause, and whether it is a problem. It is folk like you, who deny that there could be any other explanation, or deny that it may not be a problem, or deny that it may not actually be “solvable” who seem to be the “deniers”.

“An amazing number of people still believe that GW is a story made up by scientists with ulterior motives.” And they have an amazing amount of evidence to suggest that much of it could be. For political power, there is a lot to be gained from having such a catastrophe as this is claimed to be looming.

“The opinions of everyday GW deniers are evidently being driven by influential GW deniers who have a lot to lose if GW is taken seriously, such as executives in transnational oil corporations.” Ah, your colours are on the mast. It also shows a naivety that could be called charming, were it not for what you advocate at the top of the paper: murder. A point I shall return to.

“When scientists fake data and are caught, that usually means the end of their career.” Or they get a closing of ranks about them by politicians and journalists who have their own agenda to support. See “Climategate” and its aftermath (“You only want my data so you can prove me wrong…” Well, yes. That is what is known as “scientific rigour”; if you cannot be proven wrong, you rub shoulders with Einstein, otherwise, you share a drink with Epstein.)

“It’s not the kind of risk that a scientist would like to take.” True. But it has happened in the past, it will be happening now, and it will happen in the future. Like it or not, scientists are human, with all the frailties of vanity, arrogance and ignorance that beset us all.

“… there is simply no money in environmental doomsday stories …” Erm, yes there is. Talk to Al Gore.

“… reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) …” And now we get to the nub of your argument: just what IS a manageable amount of GW? To tell the truth, until we can set this point, any further argument is utterly useless, but let us persist.

“… that the cost of reducing GW to a manageable amount (whatever that is) will be enormous …” Well, as you have no idea what a “manageable amount” of GW is, how on Earth can you cost it? Your grasp of economics is as shaky as your grasp of statistics.

“…a corrupt scientist can certainly earn a lot of money by publishing research that plays down the importance of GW…” So, you do admit that there may be corrupt scientists. I do notice that you say that they are the ones publishing research that plays down the importance of GW; curiously, most of those do not seem to be earning a lot of money in this way; many do seem to be self-financed. Obviously, those who certainly are making a lot of money by publishing research that plays up the importance of GW cannot be corrupt. Can they?

“… can continue their environmentally unfriendly activities …” Such as? Such as laying large areas of Chinese countryside under radioactive waste as rare earth metals are extracted; such as despoiling mile upon mile of once beautiful scenery; such as clearing acres of habitat, all to erect unreliable, inefficient, unsightly, bird-chopping wind-turbines?

“… there is no money in publishing the uncomfortable truth about GW…” Al Gore seems to have done very nicely out of it, though he referred to it as “An Inconvenient Truth”. Perhaps you consider that truth a bit uncomfortable?

“Every five seconds a child is dying of hunger […]. The United Nations and diverse NGOs are trying to solve this problem, and making some progress.” Tragic, but a bit of a straw-man, in this context. It is a problem that will only be solved when the people solve it themselves. While we continue to make them believe that the only solution for their situation is by waiting for the white man to come to the rescue (again), then by doing as the white man tells them, I am afraid that the problem will persist. It has nothing whatsoever to do with GW.

“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.

Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.”

All very laudable, but… “Of course the murderer does not deserve to live…” you contradict yourself in your own argument! You admit that he does not deserve to live; surely, if he does not deserve to live, then he deserves to die. You have implicitly admitted that you are in favour of killing him.

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from […] ” (You may wish to spread his name; I, however, prefer not to.) “They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.” Ah, your crystal ball is out. How very scientific. Death shall not be meted out to proven murderers, but death shall be visited upon unproven, hypothetical “killers”. Your logic is getting truly bizarre.

“My estimate of “hundreds of millions”…” (Erm, make that: “Made up, scary number.”) “…is based on diverse scientific publications about GW. There are three important things to notice about those publications, in general. First, their authors are qualified to do the research. In general they worked hard and more than full-time for at least ten years before being in a position to participate credibly in research of that kind. ” (Presumably, those similarly qualified who do not agree with your viewpoint are not participating credibly in research.) “They are not just writing stuff off their heads. Second, they do not generally stand to gain or lose anything if their research concludes that GW will be more or less serious than currently thought.” Another slight flaw: this ill-thought-out diatribe is against those scientists who have concluded that GW is less serious than you believe, so you are only referring to those whose conclusions are that GW is as bad, or more so, than currently thought (by whom? is another moot point. Ah! Perhaps you mean “the consensus”, though quite when science became ruled by “the consensus” raises yet more questions… personally, I always thought science was ruled by fact, totally irrespective to the consensus, a point that one story about Galileo highlights).

“They have a different motivation: they want their research to be published in a good academic journal so that people will read it and it will improve their career chances.” Hang on: “…improve their career chances…” But I thought that these scientists were not so base as to try to influence their own career; they only sought the truth. But, hold! They have other motives. Oh, well…

“For decades, the tobacco lobby denied that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer…” And it is still not a proven cause, though one oft-quoted statistic is that 90% of lung-cancer sufferers were smokers – a statistic with its origins when 90% of the adult population smoked. Now that less than 40% of the adult population smoke, surely the smokers should still comprise about 90% of lung-cancer sufferers? (Mind you, you have already given us a fine example of your understanding of mathematics.) This is not the case; in fact, the proportion of lung-cancer sufferers who smoke is – ta-da! – less than 40%! In other words, there is actually very little correlation between smoking and lung cancer; if you are going to get it, you are going to get it, whatever you do. Interestingly, most smokers are candid enough to admit that it cannot be doing them any good, but they feel that the harm is not as bad as portrayed. (No, I do not smoke; I have never smoked, and do not understand why anyone would want to start – however, I would not want to deny others pleasures that I have no wish to partake in, so long as they do not excessively impinge upon me.)

“… lung cancer due to smoking claims one million lives per year.” Having given us citations all the way through, where do you get this figure? Perhaps you mean: “… lung cancer claims one million lives per year.” Is this figure world-wide, or just one country? If it is one country, is it one million in every country or in just one country? If it is in just one country, which country? Whatever, it is a tragic figure, true; however, the causes of lung cancer may be being hidden by the blind insistence upon focussing on only one possible cause.

“Those individuals may individually be responsible for tens or even hundreds of thousands of deaths.” Oh, dear. Back to scare-mongering again, all without a shred of evidence.

“With high probability it will cause hundreds of millions of deaths.” Crystal ball time again.

“I propose that we limit the death penalty to people whose actions will with a high probability cause millions of future deaths” Presumably, this means anybody who does not agree with you. I think we have heard calls like this throughout history.

“Consider the following scenario. A suicidal genius develops the means to destroy most of the world’s population. A heroic woman turns up (could also be a man, if you prefer)…” (How very PC.) “… and kills the villain just in time. Just like one of those superheroes comics. Even Amnesty International joins in congratulating the heroine. What else can they do? They are glad to be alive themselves.” Actually, these geniuses have occurred, though I do not think that Nobel was suicidal; neither was Rutherford. Nor are they yet considered villains. I am sure even you would admit that murdering them prior to their development of forms of mass-destruction might not have benefitted mankind (or womankind, if you prefer).

“That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. It has been clear for decades that condoms are the best way to slow the spread of AIDS, which has so far claimed 30 million innocent…” (Odd choice of word.) “… lives. The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s, or any time since then. Because it did not, millions have died unnecessarily.
Another straw-man argument. Were the basic Christian tenets observed – abstention from pre-marital, extramarital or homosexual sex – then sexually-transmitted diseases could not exist. Do not shoot the messenger: the Roman Catholic Church abhors the use of the condom as a form of contraception; its conception is that sex is only for procreation, not recreation, so it cannot consider use of a condom as a prophylactic. To blame the institutional naiveté of the Roman Catholic Church on the spread of AIDS is another bizarre form of logic.

“Those who deny the holocaust certainly belong behind bars.” Which is the sort of logic that started the holocaust in the first place: I do not like what you are thinking, so I shall make your thoughts illegal. “…like them I have freedom of speech…” a freedom that you obviously wish to deny others, to jail them for expressing thoughts that you do not agree with. What crime have those who deny the holocaust committed, other than to disagree with you? You want to take punishment for thought crime even further, to the extent of institutional murder.

One odd point is that it is those scientists who question the cause of GW being solely by human activities (i.e. that it is man-made, or “anthropogenic”) who are reviled as “deniers”, the implication being that to apply scientific questioning to this hypothesis should be denied. Few of these “deniers” are actually in denial; most are just not fully convinced by the argument that GW is anything other than a natural cycle, or that much, if anything, can be done to ameliorate, or even “solve” the problem. Perhaps it is because they do not see GW as a problem, let alone a catastrophe, that they are decried as “deniers”. Even more curious is the point that it seems to be those who pillory the “deniers” who are actually in denial; they appear to deny that there could be other causes for GW; they deny that it may not be a problem. Perhaps it might be more accurate to refer to those people who deny that there could be another cause, who deny that it may not be a catastrophic event, and deny that it is just part of a natural cycle, as the true “deniers”.

Let us stop this embarrassment, and look at the solutions that you and your ilk want: the cessation of “Big Oil” (the new “Great Satan”?), this being by far the biggest promulgator of CO2. Of course, how this is done is moot; the preferred way seems to be by “renewables”, though quite what is meant by this term is odd – none of the “renewables” in use are actually renewable; should a wind turbine break, it is fit only for landfill, and replacement. It is more difficult to break a solar panel in normal usage, but, if it does break, then the materials can be recycled – but at great cost in terms of energy, probably more than would be gained from recycling. Also, to think that “Big Oil” has no interest in “renewables” is naïve in the extreme.

With public money being shovelled into the black hole of “renewables”, the number of people suffering “fuel poverty” is growing; the UK alone is seeing an increasing number of people dying every year from the cold (admittedly, they are generally elderly, so are well past their “use by” dates, and of little importance to the likes of you). One of the benefits of “Big Oil” (evil that it is) is that it has allowed many people to raise themselves out of a hand-to-mouth existence with the provision of copious quantities of affordable fuel. This elevation of the general population to enjoy on a daily basis what used to be luxury items – meat, oranges, or a cup of tea – has been led by Europe, but others are rapidly following.

As the cost of energy rises – as rise it will, even without the daft ideas that are accelerating it – so will the cost of the commodities. Whether you understand this or not, production of commodities involves the use – or “expenditure” – of energy; that cup of tea just mentioned required the energy to plant and tend the tea bush; it absorbs “free” energy from the Sun in growth, but energy is then spent picking, sorting, treating, packing and transporting, ultimately to the shelf in your kitchen. As the accelerated cost of energy rises in your “ideal” world, so will the cost of that cup of tea. Less tea will be drunk, so less tea will be produced. As more and more people fall into fuel poverty, fewer and fewer commodities will be sold, thus pushing the commodity providers into poverty (I get the suspicion that you might consider that a good thing), and the prices will rise – it will be an ever-increasing spiral downwards. One side effect (a good one, in many people’s eyes) is that the world population will reduce – i.e. more people will die than will be born. Initially, most of these people will be the elderly, but, as their numbers dwindle, so this weighting will move to the young; a young child requires more energy per mass to survive than an adult. So, your dream of a world free of “executives in transnational oil corporations”, a world of “renewables” (presumably not “transnational”, nor with any executives), will be a massively depopulated world, one in which many, many millions will have died long, suffering deaths, and one into which hundreds of millions of future generations will never be born. I accuse YOU, sir! YOU and your ilk are the deniers; YOU are the mass-murderers! It is YOU, the collective YOU, who will cause the death of tens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of millions of real people. “They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people.” YOU are already causing the deaths of tens of thousands of present-day people. Real people, not dreamt of, hypothetical future people. People who were alive – not hypothetically in the future, but really, really alive; living, breathing, loving – are no more because of fuel poverty, a poverty you wish to inflict upon us all (yourself included, though, insulated as you are by tax-payers’ cash, you might not notice). YOUR dream has started, as is seen by yet another elderly person being discovered, dead from hypothermia in their own home. By YOUR logic, it should be YOUR head on the block, YOUR neck in the noose. In your world of shamans, of fighting imaginary fights, of standing on the shoreline, commanding the sea to turn back, blaming its surge on human activity, ignoring the pull of the Moon and Sun, those deaths will rise, slowly at first, but inexorably exponential, until the dying outpace the ability of the living to bury them. I doubt that you will ever see that, as you will remain cossetted in your ivory towers, forever in denial, forever dreaming of sainthood.